With that, I conclude my thoughts. On the whole, while I believe that the MVP report raises a few legitimate concerns, the overall effect of its declarations must be viewed as negative. It is not carefully worded for the most part, and in places it effectively excludes teachings which are plainly supported by the Bible and the Westminster standards. On several occasions, it excludes teachings which are obviously non-scriptural, or out of step with Reformed theology, but one suspects that the views as stated would not be maintained by any FV thinker. And oftentimes, it is worded so vaguely as to be of little practical use, such as when it speaks of those views which “radically modify” or “confuse” or “reject the essence” or “undermine” or “undercut” Reformed theology, and of views which “suggest” supposedly incorrect understandings of biblical teaching, and of views which do not “adequately” maintain necessary distinctions. Exactly who is to make these highly subjective determinations? One suspects that the particular doctrinal constructions of a specific group within the PCA are simply assumed to be the correct way of understanding and articulating these contested issues, which runs the danger of engaging in a protracted exercise of “begging the question.” And that, at the end of the day, is probably the best way I can think of to summarize the tone and outlook of the MVP report.